If this passage is read from a feminist perspective, the first thing to note is that it, like the rest of the Bible, was written by a man. The story reflects a strong patriarchal society in which the husband rules over the wife and children, especially the daughters. The voluntary, religious vow of a man takes precedence over the rights, even the very life, of the daughter. That Jephthah feels sorry for his daughter doesn't excuse his failure to break his vow, and risk God's wrath upon himself, rather than kill his daughter. In other words, Jephthah values his own life above that of his daughter. Men today who devalue women, or parents who devalue their children, follow in the footsteps of Jephthah. But far from receiving praise from God for fulfilling his vow, God is surprisingly silent. The Deuteronomistic editors were critical of Jephthah's vow in the first place, but do not explicitly condemn his execution of his daughter. The patriarchal system, which values males more than females, is alive and well in our world. Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter is wrong in many different ways, not least of which because it is based on the lie that women are inferior to men.
Despite its position in the Hebrew Bible between Amos and Micah, two eighth-century prophets (Jonah is a special case, a narrative with no prophetic oracles), Obadiah should be dated to early in the exilic period, just after the Babylonians have destroyed the city of Jerusalem and carried its leading inhabitants away to Babylonia. The Edomites, whom the people of Judah considered distant relatives, had collaborated with the Babylonians in the conquest of Judah, probably in exchange for territorial considerations. The freshness of the disaster of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple weighed heavily on the mind of the prophet, and he eagerly desired to see the punishment that God would mete out on Edom. From a historical perspective, it is highly doubtful that an alliance between Judah and Edom would have stopped the Babylonian onslaught against King Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, and the king of Edom probably believed that he was acting in the best interest of his own people in siding with Babylonia over Judah. Nevertheless, the prophet calls down God's judgment on Israel's errant brother, who, from the prophet's perspective, valued easy profits over familial loyalty.
The Greek text of Philemon offers several noteworthy plays on words that don't come across in translation. For example, the name Onesimus means "useful," so when Paul says in verse 11, "Formerly he was useless to you, but he is indeed useful both to you and to me," he is alluding to Onesimus' name. The word "useful" that Paul uses also carries another double meaning, because eu-chrestos, "useful," is similar in sound to eu-christos, which can be understood as "good in Christ." Slavery was an institution that permeated the ancient world. It has been estimated that as many as 35 to 40 percent of the total population of Rome consisted of slaves. The Bible contains no explicit condemnations of slavery, though it does limit its application in various Old Testament laws. Paul's "advice" to Philemon, which should probably be viewed as a command couched in softer language, was that he should free Onesimus. If he did, Paul said, Onesimus would be more useful to Philemon than he had ever been before.
The book of Philemon may be read in the light of the movie Spartacus, about the largest Roman slave revolt in history, approximately one hundred years before Paul wrote his letter, and Harriett Beecher Stowe's classic anti-slavery book, Uncle Tom's Cabin. The slave Spartacus escaped from his master and led a slave revolt that included thousands of other slaves who kept the Roman army at bay for several months, before being defeated in battle. Spartacus himself was crucified, along with hundreds of other slaves. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a fictional portrayal of the evils of slavery in the American South prior to the Civil War. Although many today find the title character too accommodating and deferential to his white masters, the book touched a nerve when it was released, and it made thousands of white people in the north aware for the first time of what a thoroughly evil institution slavery was. It is interesting to note that Spartacus led a rebellion of arms that failed, but Harriett Beecher Stowe led a rebellion of ideas that ultimately triumphed. Paul, too, chose to address the issue of slavery within the Christian community with the force of ideas.
Consider these visual representations of the story by artists from the 16th and 17th centuries.
| This drawing by Aldergrever portrays a banquet at the rich man's house, lively and distracting. Lazarus sits against the wall holding a beggar's bowl (empty), and dogs are sniffing at his legs. |
| Veronese painted this picture of a banquet at the rich man's house. The guests are focused on the music being played by the ensemble gathered on the porch, while Lazarus begs in the courtyard, unnoticed by the others. |
| In this painting by Horenbout, Lazarus has already died, and his soul is being transported to heaven by angels. A knock at the door above indicates that death has come to claim the rich man as well. The dogs run to the door to greet the visitor, and their attraction to death calls to mind their licking the wounds of Lazarus--the dogs are attracted to corruption. |
| In this engraving from a famous early anti-witchcraft book, Malleus Maleficarum, the rich man is restrained in hell by demons, while Lazarus sits childlike on Abraham's lap. Both are naked, Lazarus in innocence but the rich man in shame. |
| This engraving is from the title page to a book containing a sermon by Martin Luther on this passage, which he preached in 1522. The central frame holds a simple picture of Lazarus, childlike, sitting on Abraham's lap, looking at the rich man standing in the midst of flames. Interestingly, hell itself is portrayed as the mouth of a giant dog, in contrast to the dogs in the story that licked Lazarus' wounds. |